Science: Truth or Fraud?

Introduction: This article addresses the question: is scientific wisdom backed up by the Truth or is it all one huge Fraud?

Abstract: The views expressed in this article are based on recent discussions of this question. These views can be summed up as follows: Scientists have to gal to demand large sums of public money, forcibly taken from common people to fund schemes such as military research. Scientists are a privileged bunch living in an ivory tower, supposedly searching for this illusive truth. Well, the search has ended here, in failure, the house of cards starts to collapse and the word is out that science is a fraud! Let the fraud be exposed!


A. The Horror of Science!

Nowadays, there are more and more people who dare to speak out against the paternalistic, autocratic situation in science, specifically in physics. Unfortunately, one only hears about these things when someone questions this situation who appears to have made it as a scientist. As if the author, only by the virtue of becoming a successful scientist, has finally earned the right to speak! Without the author's scientific notoriety, such a story would not have been told. Seldom does one hear about the countless numbers of students and people in general, whose lives have been damaged because they dared to question the wisdom of science. Even at kindergarten, teacher are preaching science like devoted zealots.

In some respects, even the scientists themselves are victims, in that they have fallen into the trap of believing that they somehow are more intelligent than other people. They happily wear the blinkers and walk in line with a system that keeps dictators in positions of power and that silences the masses.

The establishment still rewards people who walk in line and who proudly add academic titles to their names. Students who do not graduate because of their doubts, are stigmatized as loosers and drop-outs.

In future times, once this horror will have been more fully exposed, academic titles will turn into records of shame, more incriminating than ciminal records themselves. And that is not a prophecy nor a scientific prediction, it's just one of those gut-feelings that carries more weight than a library full of research data.

B. What is Science?

Firstly, let's be clear about what is science. Universities invented scientists as a class. Universities give titles to some, while excluding others and thus creating an elite. What complicates matters is that science is sometimes restricted to certain specializations, but science can also be extended to many, if not all, academic areas. Control over many sectors of society in turn hinges on professional qualifications, thus extending the concept of science into a professional career. Research versus non-research funding further complicates matters. But the issue remains the same. Some people are privileged over others, merely because they call themselves scientists.

A typical claim of such scientists is that computers cannot be built without science. But computers were actually built by drop-outs such as Steven Jobs and Bill Gates, not by scientists. These drop-outs realized in time that their university time was a waste of their talents. By the way, the monopolitic policies of Microsoft should be rejected. But the monopoly of scientists is far more evil by comparison.

People who manage to put something together that works, are not scientists, no, they are engineers, technicians, mechanics, entrepreneurs, etc. Even more credit should be given to the inventors and visionaries without academic titles and to all the common folks who assisted in making all these things in what they are now. All such people will generally add a disclaimer to product of their work, warning against non-intended use, they will warn people that their products may not work under all conditions.

Scientists, by contrast, have the arrogance to claim that their weird ideas are nothing less than the Truth, that their statements somehow have 'universal and eternal validity'. They see themselves as more omniscient and omnipotent than the Pope. But scientists do not make practical things, they only come up with theories (which, by the way, are invariably rejected by other scientists again). Scientists are not checked by commercial realities nor by clients who ask for a service. Scientists can put together a torture chamber under the pretence that this will somehow advance the cause of science, and few people will object.

Scientists do not make practical things and they should not be paid to do other things either. Without scientists, the world would have ended up with far better computers. Think of the vast amounts of money poured into universities in vain. Think of the huge wast of time and efforts of students and staff. Universities should not be paid with money forcibly extracted from common people to allow scientists to basically do what they like without accountibility. The peer review that is common among scientists is like allowing criminals to judge their mates! They fail on the most important criterion: impartiality!

When computers became a household item, universities scrambled to put together courses in computer science, cashing in on the demand. They had to hire people from industry and they still do, except for obsolete courses. Nowadys, people who want to get a high salary, follow a Mircosoft course, rather than a University study. As it turns out, Microsoft certification counts more than a University degree.

Universities base their supposed superiority on scientific research, as opposed to merely training students in technical skills. But such research at universities has been a costly failure. Most research now takes place outside universities. Universities try to save face by fooling people into thinking that the ideas dreamed up at university are somehow fundamental and that commercial laboratories somehow benefit by applying this when making commercial products. But who benefits from such 'fundamental' research? Ask commercial laboratories and they will most likely say that they prefer to receive the money directly that is being poured into universities. Similarly, companies would rather receive cash, instead of enjoying the perceived benefits of 'fundamental' research.

By the way, what is research anyway? How much research that takes place at large companies is solely designed to evade tax and to obtain subsidies.

Common folks, who have contributed most to making computers and other products into what they are now, have paid for all this, yet scientists arrogantly claim the credit. It is time that the practices of this oligarchy are exposed for this fraud. Scientists want the privilege of being occupied with their hobbies, without accountibility to outsiders for what they say or do. Scientists only want peer review, ignoring the fact that scientists are clearly not impartial on this very issue of accountability. On top of this, scientists want taxpayers to pay for the lot.

C. Science's Arrogance and Fraud.

And that's where the arrogance is. Scientists are quick to ask anyone who questions these privileges, questions such as: Who are you to question me? What are your academic qualifications? What academic background qualifies you to ask such questions? The scientific oligarchy refuses to allow outsiders (i.e. people without academic qualifications) to question their over-privileged situation, whereas the peers that scientists like to see appointed to look into these matters, are generally too proud about their academic qualifications to seriously question their value and, more generally, the associated privileges. And that is what not only gives science a bad name, it makes science into one big scheme of fraud and cover-up!

Anyone that does take a serious look into science will observe that the 'knowledge' that all these scientific researchers claim to possess, becomes more rapidly obsolete every day. What some years ago looked like firm knowledge to scientists now appears more like naive assumptions.

Some archaic scientists may still believe in some kind of Newtonian universe that is put together by the grand Designer and that goes like clockwork, but other scientists have long abandoned the idea of laws of nature that are written in stone as simple formulas. In fact many of today's scientists have completely abandoned the idea of such Newtonian laws that rule the universe, and they would declare such ideas to be incompatible with modern science. Some backward teachers at remote primary schools may still try to impress pupils with omniscient attitudes, but it certainly is not the quality of their teachings that keeps such persons in their position.

Many years ago, Einstein introduced relativity as a superior model, which was in time superseded by quantum mechanics. Today, many of the most advanced scientific models incorporate random elements, even chaos, in efforts to approximate natural phenomena. The days that naive people could be fooled into believing that scientists had some sort of secret book with magic formulas, are over. The idea that there is eternal knowledge that grows on trees, to be picked only by scientists, has long been exposed as a myth. People who perpetuate and exploit that myth with the aim of extracting further privileges and tax-payers funding, commit something that can amount to large-scale fraud, complete with cover-up shrouded in legally-backed secrecy.

The world has been kept hostage long enough by the scientific-military-industrial conglomerate that has such enormous influence on politics all over the world. It is time that people stand up and question the arrogant scientist whose self-confindence at closer look is only based on wind and privilege.

Again, this is where science differs from engineering. An engineer is paid to, say, make a bridge that is strong enough to carry the load, i.e. an engineer's task is narrowly described. Engineers will give some kind of guarantee that such a bridge will be strong enough to carry the load, i.e. engineers are held accountible for their work, but engineer will add disclaimers.

Scientists on the other hand are not held accountible, yet such scientists will claim that their rules have universal validity, no disclaimers added. Ironically, one scientist can totally contradict another scientist. From a philosophical perspective, Einstein's relativity theory is widely accepted to be superior to Newtons rules, because it can be applied to situations where Newton's rules run into problems.

Philosophically, the question is whether one model approximates natural phenomena better than another. Chaos theory is not merely used to avoid having to produce billions of billions of calculations and accumulating computer round-off errors, or because of data insufficiencies. Chaos theory comprises much more, it is a fundamentally different approach.

Scientists want to see a joint body of work called Science, ignoring that, even among scientists, there are different views, even irreconcilable differences. In an effort to lump all such views together, scientists argue that, say, Newton's laws belong to a specific reference frame. And of course, scientists insist on defining the borders of that framework themselves, changing the goalposts when it suits them. Poets use techniques such as tautologies. But poets will admit that these are rhetorical techniques. The arrogance of scientists is that they claim exclusive insight in the Truth. Scientists like to declare to have found evidence of their 'wisdom'. At closer look, all their 'evidence' is nothing but a boxful of tautologies and other tricks.

Newton claimed his rules to be universally valid. This claim ran into problems. So, science tries to put each set of rules into a separate framework, as if quantum mechanics is about the microcosmos and relativity is about things of cosmic dimensions, while Newton remains perfectly valid in between. But of course, relativity, quantum mechanics and chaos theory do not merely apply to the teeny weeny stuff or the really big stuff, but also to all the stuff in between. Accordingly, Newtonian rules are not even perfectly valid in regard to the 'stuff in beteen'. The error factor (from a non-Newtonian point of view) may be minute, even negligable to the technician who needs to construct something specific.

The point is that Newton's rules are taught at school as if they are the true rules of nature. To deliberately and knowingly present something that is false as the truth, that is fraud. All scientists are guilty by default, by calling themselves scientists, by vicarious liability, by perpetuating this myth. The fraud is that scientists arrogantly exploit a myth in order to maintain their joint privileges for personal benefits of each of them.

D. Science's Privileges.

Science is a creation of politicians and greedy people who seek privilege. Science is fabricated by universities, that have been given the privilege by politicians to hand out academic titles. A scientist is a label put onto people who collaborate most in this scheme of privilege that feeds universities, national laboratories and the gigantic military-industrial complex that shrouds its activities behind scientific privilege, commercial and military secrecy, and political deals. Funding of science, of universities and of national research laboratories is largely decided by politicians who seek votes from the many people trapped in this scheme.

The privileges of science are not merely about who should receive research funding. Science demands independence, the military demands secrecy, while industry demands protection of trade secrets. Put the three together and accountability becomes the victim.

This is not about some specific waste of money somewhere. The question is whether a monster has been created that cannot be stopped, that feeds itself, that is too powerful and reluctant to be investigated, let alone be controlled.

The privileges of science go much further than research grants. Science is one of the cornerstones of education, with a huge influence on the shape of many professions and the scope of many people's careers. The whole education system is based on the myth that some people have some knowledge that others lack. The education system has many legal privileges, e.g. regarding copyright. To get into many professions, one is legally obliged to obtain University degrees and titles, in other words, to first be indoctrinated with scientific ideology. In a more market-oriented society, many if not most scientists turn out to be unemployable. Look at Russia - the moment market forces were introduced, scientists were out of work in droves.

Of course, things have been constructed throughout history, long before there were universities that gave people academic titles and thus the exclusive privilege to control certain professions. People constructed things long before Newton had formulated his laws. They did not listen to Newton's instructions first, before constructing things like some mindless assembly-line robots, they did not ask permission from scientists first.

Again, on the one hand, scientists argue that Newton's laws apply even retrospectively, but on the other hand they say that Newton's laws only apply within a given framework, defining and changing the rules as it suits them. Scientific equations are just like tautologies and similar techniques so often used by poets. If what is at one side of the equation is already included in the definition of what is at the other side of the equation, then it is a pretty empty statement. There is nothing wrong with this, as long as it is called poetry. But if this is done under the name of science, scientists make it look as if they have discovered some hidden, eternal and universal truth. Of course, one can regard science as just another subset of poetry, or art, if you like, but in that case an artist shouldn't turn up with the same old hat all the time. As artists, scientists would not make it in the real world.

E. Implications for Education.

If what is taught as science turns out to be a fraud, what would be the implications? Imagine that the knowledge that a person is supposed to have gained, say, twenty years ago, turns out to have become obsolete, even false. Why should this person with outdated, incorrect 'knowledge' be given an advantage over someone without a title? Sure, commercial companies are keen to employ scientists with the aim of making profits. But if such companies had a choice how to spend money on staff training, they would most likely not send that money to universities. Why is so much government funding spent on polishing up someone's profile, in order to make it easier for that person to get a job with such a company? Why should someone with the ambition to become, say, an honest carpenter not get similar funding? Is the answer perhaps that the carpenter is too honest, thus refusing to participate in such a fraudulent scheme, while scientists cover each other up, well aware of the extent of the fraud, but unwilling to give up their privileges? The answer is that the education system is one of the principle instruments in the hand of governments that want to indoctrinate people with its values. Newton's rules are taught at school, as school likes children to believe that there are simple rules that govern the universe. School is to a large extent compulsory, adding coercion to the set of false values. Teachers deliberately force dictatorial values upon children and the false idea that there is some kind of order in the universe is a cornerstone of that doctrine.

The problem is that people are not allowed to decide directly on issues like this, it is hard to even get these issues discussed. Part of the problem is also that it is hard for people who have been indoctrinated for so many years that science is something good, to face up to the possibility that they have been mislead.

School makes it look as if education is a process of incremental understanding, rather than that Newton, relativity, quantum mechanics and chaos are different apporaches that are to a large extent inconsistent with each other. Teachers like to present science as a set of uniform rules about which they almost understand everything. Teacher act as if university research will find the bits and pieces that are missing in their knowledge. This in itself is a questionable philosophy. Teachers like to think that they have all the answers, worse, that their views are the only truthful ones. Teachers make it look like they have all the knowledge, but this very attitude disqualifies their 'wisdom'. In the process, teachers are pushing everybody into a straitjacket that doesn't fit anyone, worse that is based on false values.

E. Resolution.

One simple solution would be to stop government funding to science and to education in general. But it requires more than a simple ministerial decision to change attitudes that are so entrenched and embedded in contemporary culture.

WHEN, the World Home Education Network, advocates the following three steps to improve the situation.
a. abolish compulsory school;
b. open up education to competition;
c. stop looking up to academic titles and subject matter.

The first two steps can be taken by politicians alone, but to be effective, they do require endorsement of large parts of society. The third step appears mainly a question of cultural change. Read more about this at WHEN, the World Home Education Network.

And as usual, Optionality Magazine suggests that the answer lies in the cultural changes envisaged in DonParagon's Vision of the Future.




 Support Optionality
[ Quotes | Reviews | Poems | Philosophy | Politics ]
 
 Optionality Magazine
 Optionality Discussions
WEBdesign by  Quintessence all rights reserved
 Vision of the Future